phil

Haha, I missed that thread. When I had a really bad back I used to get all my hard cover Beano, Dandy, Oor Wullie, etc, annuals (I'm that old), and lay them on my bed. I was right as rain the morning. Blaming Ruth Davidson for you back problems might be going a bit far. BTW just to clarify, most folk on here are fine, and people can write whatever they want. But, and I hope I'm not being prissy, just saying the tone of debate must put people off sometimes - e.g. posters arranging to meet up in a pub for a fight, and the board suffers as a result.

Board is not what it was as it's now run seemingly as a pro-independence propaganda outlet. There's about 6 people with about a million posts each who seem to live on it, and set the tone. I'm practically the only anti-SNP voice on here, and that can't possibly reflect the views of the TA as a whole - I reckon there's plenty who have drifted away. I get some choice responses to my very occasional posts, and I genuinely don't care, but I can see how it would put others, who might have a worthwhile contribution to make, off. Raise the level of etiquette a bit, and don't just tell people to GTF just for saying something that goes against the majority opinion. At the moment it's not so much a forum, more of an echo chamber.

When are the England tickets going on sale?

Agreed. Some powerful performances from old Boothy - superb in Deadwood, and Nixon. And you had to respect the way he absolutely refused to accepted his thinning locks. It was Trumpian. Sad day.

You’re still not really getting my point. I’m not talking Scotland down. I’m sure as many talented people are born in Scotland as anywhere else, the problem is they don’t stay…… it's estimated that 30,000 young Scots leave every year for England or abroad. Of course, it's good that our young people go to live and work in foreign countries. It's the time of life to see the world, broaden the mind and develop new skills. It's just a pity that, in the main, Scotland won't benefit. Most of the 30,000 probably intend to return to Scotland. Few of them will. So many will find that it's much, much easier to leave Scotland than to return. Once a job is found elsewhere, a career path beckons. Training opportunities are offered, promotions gained. Alternatives in Scotland are limited or non-existent. http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13183494.Ten_of_thousands_will_still_leave_Scotland_forever/ I oppose independence for mainly practical reasons – though the flag waving ‘wha’s like us’ stuff leaves me cold too. The above trend won’t be reversed, but probably accelerated, by independence. Setting up the new/renewed nation will be ruinously expensive. That and the loss of revenue from the UK government would have to be made up from hefty tax hikes on the rich, or massive borrowing. Neither is attractive. If it’s the former then the wealthiest could just up and run. It’s not as if they’d have far to go. If it’s the latter, the interest rates would be crippling. You’ll say this Project Fear propaganda but I’ve seen these points put to SNP spokespeople many times, and they never have a convincing answer. The UK works in the sense that the least economically productive areas, e.g. remote parts of Scotland, are subsidized by the wealthiest, which, like it or hate it, means the City of London, home incidentally to 800,000 Scots. Can’t see these hard facts changing anytime soon so……. Far better to argue for more local decision making – if that’s what you think is needed – within the existing UK structure.

A pre-qual at the polling station ! YES, what a great idea. We could have a couple of burly SNP 'information officers' at the doors of the polling station 'advising' people who might be confused about who to vote for. That kind of thing has worked very well in Zimbabwe, I believe. Anyone who insists on voting for parties other than the SNP, and especially the Tories, could have their names and address taken, placed on a register, and 'dealt with' later. Progressive politics in action! Jesus.......

How does supporting the union automatically make you a nationalist/extremist? I’ve never waived a union jack in my life and would feel embarrassed to do so, and I’d guess most NO voters would say the same. The union was a grubby compromise put together by hard-headed pragmatists, or a ‘parcel of rogues’ if you prefer, at a time of crisis. It was not the work of starry-eyed idealists or die-hard nationalists. And like it or not, and probably for that reason, it has worked. It makes sense in a small monolingual, monolcultural island to pool resources and run things centrally. You can argue endlessly about how much local power should be devolved to the regions, but the basic premise is sound. A truly independent Scotland would, presumably, mean a separate treasury, parallel civil service, Scottish embassies around the globe, probably a new currency, and maybe even a new independent Scottish army. This mad process of ‘Scotification’ would duplicate what we already have, at enormous cost, in what would be an impoverished state, just to make some people feel good, for a short time. It’s bonkers, and opposing it doesn’t make you an extremist – just sane and rational.

I wrote starting to 'crumble' advisedly, as in the beginning of a process over time. I agree they are likely to stay strong for the foreseeable future, but significantly down from their 2014 /15 highs; and I think they'll have a very hard job getting anywhere near that level again. I agree with you though that there is real potential for an SNP that downgrades full independence to a vague aspiration sometime in the future rather than a realistic short term goal. It scares people too much, and they underestimate the genuine feelings of kinship and sympathy people in Scotland have for the rest of the UK. And I also think people are getting fed up with the constant phoney outrage and special pleading.

I think the results gives credence to that 60 - 40 poll on independence a while back. SNP remain a solid, formidable minority but they are starting to crumble, and the floaters that were drawn to the cause in 2014 boosting the YES vote are now floating away again. It must say something about the independence issue that so many Labour voters were willing to vote Tory, probably for the first time in their lives. If it were just a reaction to Corbyn they'd be more likely to just stay home surely? The bloom is off the rose for the Nats and there have been a number of causes: Calling for a vote on Independence at the worst possible time for the UK seemed treacherous and opportunistic and put off a lot of people - see online poll. Their Europhilia just didn't connect with the public mood, even among ardent remainers - I can't imagine anyone being 'dragged out of the EU against (their) will' apart from maybe John Claude Juncker. Their piss poor record in government is becoming increasingly apparent and that tax payer funded vanity tour of the US showed worrying signs of megalomania. Add to that, Ruth D has been superb despite the avalanche of vile abuse that rains down on her; and Theresa May has handled Sturgeon adroitly, making her appear shrill and desperate by comparison.

Quite right. Clear message of the night - the overwhelming majority of Scots don't want independence, and want to make clear their rejection of a party some of whose supporters call anyone that disagrees with them 'scum'.

Ruth has got the SNP rattled and regularly outclasses Sturgeon, so they are jumping on anything they can to discredit her, the more emotive the issue the better. Whatever you think of the rape clause, deliberately spreading misinformation about it - Sturgeon will know perfectly well that the 8 page form can be filled in by a healthcare or social worker but chooses to suggest otherwise - for political gain is truly shameful.

You are absolutely right, and I am not pretending for a minute that the vow wasn't made. It was and should be honoured. My beef is with the SNP leadership putting it about that the vow was the only reason they lost, and since the vow is bound to be reneged on, the nation had been conned, the result was invalid, and we need a rerun. It's pretty obvious what they're doing. On the referendum night itself Sturgeon, with an eye on the future, was spouting her 'Scotland has voted for change', nonsense, when the only thing we knew for certain was that Scotland had done precisely the opposite, albeit by a fairly narrow margin. I have no problem with Yes voters, and no problem with people continuing to campaign for independence, but it should be done on the merits of the case, not based on Salmond and Sturgeon's mischief/myth making. Don't get taken for a ride on the betrayal bandwagon.

Anyway, I think a problem here is that people are just believing whatever they want to believe, whatever feels good. It suits the purposes of the pro-independence lobby to believe that the 'vow' - or was it the 'pledge'? - made all the difference because it fits the narrative they want to pursue - we wuz robbed, cheated, tricked etc. And it keeps the pot boiling. In fact, it's just about impossible to identify exactly why people voted as they did with any degree of accuracy. When asked by pollsters, many people are likely to give the answer that casts them in the best light possible - i.e, 'I'm not a nationalist. I just want a fairer society.', or, to be fair, on the NO side, 'I think we're better together', not I'm worried about my pension. So, I'm pretty skeptical about polls. All I can say is I don't know anyone who shifted from Yes to. No as a result of the, frankly pathetic, last minute promises of the party leaders. Indeed, I know many No voters who are fairly peeved that they are being told they were duped, when they were solid No from the get go, and don't even want these extra powers.

Totally agree. I don't know a single No voter who was influenced by 'the vow'. The SNP are playing up the treachery and betrayal angle - before it has even happened - to push for another referendum and keep their bandwagon rolling. Yes did well, but lost. That should be accepted, No voters respected, and another go, if that's what people want, in a generation.

The point of the quote was that all nationalism is bad - English, British, Scottish. You can't distinguish. It's the same dubious instinct, because patriots only ever talk about the good stuff and never acknowledge the bad, 'the debt', or they blame it on someone else. In the case of Britain, the debt is enormous, and one massive example will suffice, which can be summed up in one word: empire. Unfortunately this was very much a collaboration project, Scots were involved up to the hilt, and the results for parts of the world have been catastrophic, and ongoing. Apparently 5 million people were killed in this 'project', and if it didn't make everyone rich, it did benefit a huge number, north and south of the border. That's why I cringe a bit when people - on the Yes side and No side - talk of their pride to be Scottish/British and wonder if they have really thought deeply about what they are saying. Of course, plenty of Yes supporters are not flag wavers at all, just want a fairer society. I totally understand that, but if that is your position, surely DEVO Max would suit you better? Like it or not we are entwined with the rest of the UK, and many Scots just don't want to break away entirely. I never trusted the SNP leadership. Why has Alex Salmond resigned? He has been acclaimed for his performance in the campaign, got a very creditable result, and there is no one better to fight for the deliverance of the promised extra powers. So why is walking away? I suspect it's because he's lost interest. To him Independence is the be all and end all, making speeches about social justice and a fairer society were just a way to get decent and principled people to vote for it.

It might make people feel better, and help you understand NO voters, if you defined yourself by something other than your nationality. Slip the metaphorical saltire from your shoulders, at least for a while, and just be yourself. Here are the words of a very wise man: 'Nationalism is a cheap instinct and a dangerous tool. Take away from any country what it owes to other countries; and then be proud of of it if you can. In a poor country, patriotism is to believe that one's country would be the best if it were rich and powerful. In a rich one patriotism is to believe one's country is the best because it is rich and powerful. So patriotism becomes the desire to get what others have or to keep others from getting what one has. In short, it is an aspect of conservatism; of animal envy and animal selfishness.'

Regarding the ex-pats, Anne Miller in the Guardian suggested a workable solution to practicalities: 'you can still vote in UK elections for 15 years after you were last on the electoral roll and with amendments this could provide the basis for a solution. By the time you've clocked up a decade and a half of living elsewhere that should really count as a permanent move but a shorter time limit say five years would seem reasonable, especially if the onus was on individuals to submit their details, including when they were last on a Scottish electoral roll.' Makes sense to me, and I know several expats who were desperate to vote Yes and were extremely annoyed that they couldn't. Not all ex pats are such by choice, and it's a fundamental principal that if a decision could affect a person's passport status they should have a say in it. My wider point though is that the SNP were able to set up this referendum exactly as they wanted, including when it took place, who could vote and even the framing of the question itself - which kind of invited a Yes in my view. The 'establishment' idiotically, negligantly, arrogantly perhaps, but not conspiratorially, allowed them to so. In a sense, good luck to them, but it undermines the whole idea that the fight was unfair and that all the advantages and resources were with NO. Sure, more newspapers were with NO than YES, but the Yes campaign had plenty of outlets, not least social media, too. And for all the crass and tasteless reporting from the Daily Telegraph, were their readers ever going to vote Yes? I doubt if the right wing press converted anyone. If people want another referendum, and a Yes victory next time, talk of conspiracies, fixes, and betrayals isn't the way to go about it. People need to ask NO voters why they chose that option, and listen to their answers.

Yes, good post Lamia, admire your spirit but disagree with most of what you are saying. The NO campaign was more inept that anything. Conspiracy theories about the evil establishment spreading lies and malice are pretty ridiculous frankly. 'They', if they exist, are not that smart. If they were there wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place, or certainly not on Salmond's terms. Reality check time: Salmond excluded 800,000 expats, which was scandalous, but I kind of almost admire him for it. He knew he had a battle on his hands and had to pull every stroke possible to pull it off. At the end of the day he is a politician, and a pretty crafty one. Point is, he obviously felt the expats were likely to vote no. He was probably right, they mostly fitted the profile of NO voters. Had they voted, and voted predominantly NO, the 45 could have been closer to the 40 or even the high 30s, and that would probably have been the end of the independence story. As for scare stories, well, plenty of big hitters with no connection to the NO campaign weighed in in agreement with the fears on the economy, and let's face it, big Alex's economic plan was utter pish. If he had had a better plan he might have pulled it off. And the Yes side were making up their own scarey stuff too - evil Tory plan plan to privatise the NHS? Er, plausible, but unfortunately, not possible. Bottom line, beware the Mannichaean impulse to divide the world into blocks of pure good and pure evil. Nationalism encourages that, and it's a sweet seductive message, 'we wuz robbed!', but the truth is always more complicated.

Well, some pretty disgusting stuff there. I seem to have touched a nerve. You guys have proved yourselves to be complete morons and not worth talking to. I won't be logging on again so any more bile you want to spew up will be unread. Ta Ta

You're welcome 'Neil', and all the best to you sir. Thanks also to 'Stapes' for putting me right. I hadn't realised the Yessers actually owned this board and you had to establish your TA credentials before you could put forward an opinion, but there you go...learn something every day. My reason for starting this thread was to find out if I was alone amongst us in being a NO voter. The conclusion seems to be that I might well be. I suspect though that are other regular posters on this board who do agree with me, at least in part, but are keeping their heads down because they don't like the kind of treatment they know they'll get if they speak out. This is happening all over Scotland. Even if today's poll is accurate there are still 49% who oppose the break up of the union, but I have to say, they are keeping awfie quiet. Have just heard from two good friends of mine, a young English couple who moved to Stirling to work and because they loved Scotland (or thought they did!) but have decided to leave Scotland because of all the abuse they have been getting from locals, which has been gathering in intensity in the build up to the vote. Can't belive that kind of thing is happening in my country - but that is nationalism in action folks! So keep the snide comments coming - they are not that impressive to be honest, and I'll keep arguing my case as well, right up until polling day.

Brilliant! Well played lads. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/06/scottish-independence-footballers_n_5776564.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

Hey, I'm not quite 50! And I don't give a rat's about the abuse, care very much about the referendum. Am not a labour activist. I signed up for this board ages ago, just never posted. And for what it's worth, my name really is Phil, so you can save on the punctuation marks ' '.

Yes folks, I am still here. Thanks for all the comments on my thread. Special thanks to those who have labelled me a 'troll'. Ashamed to admit it, but as I'm getting on a bit, I'm not that savvy with all the tech speak and I didn't actually know what this word meant! So I looked it up and learned something! Cheers for that; I'll add it to the 'traitor' and 'Quisling' I have been called to my face this month already by my charming, broad minded compatriots. No worries though, I'm big enough and ugly enough to take it all on my grey stubbly chin. However, can't forgive the person who called me a 'journo', that's going too far. Anyway, to answer a few points raised: no I am no more a British nationalist than I am a Scottish one. On the whole national identity thing I agree with Billy Connolly who said in an interview with the BBC that he doesn't buy the whole 'them' and 'us' thing either. Specifically he said that with his background he has far more in common with a welder in Newcastle than an agricultural worker in the Highlands. We're all a big mixture of different identities and throughout the UK we have so much more in common than we have differences that to cleave off one nation is patently absurd. Ther is no 'cultural chasm' that would justify that. We speak the same language, have the same religions, watch the same crap telly, eat the same crap food, laugh at the same jokes etc. I'm not into the 'Wha's like us?' stuff at all. Scotland is a great place, and so is England, Ireland and Wales. And I don't believe for a minute that we are all the victims of the cruel and wicked English, stealing our oil, holding us back, killing our first born. The figures don't support the assertion that Scotland is getting ripped off by the rest of the UK but even if they did that still wouldn't be an argument for smashing up the union, which has worked pretty well for 300 years - even the SNP leaders constantly refer to how prosperous Scotland is now! What it would be is an argument for changing things so Scotland got a fairer share. On the question of sovereignty: the claim that we hear again and again that 'Scotland never gets the governments it votes for' requires much further scrutiny. To claim that Scottish MPs have no influence at Westminster is nonsense. In a finely balanced parliament we have quite a lot. And while the coalition may not be reflective of Scottish voters the three, that's three!, preceeding Labour governments absolutely were. And believe it or not, quite a significant percentage of Scots actually voted for Mrs Thatcher, at least in 79 and 83. In any case this is a totally disingenuous argument from the Nats, who were voted in by a little more than 30 percent of the electorate. So we have a Scottish government that the majority of Scots didn't vote for now! The majority of Scots didn't even vote to hold this referendum. Look up the figures yourselves. And on top of all this we have our own parliament now, with significant powers and more to come. Now I have to say a wee word about Mr Salmond. I know all this is about more than personalities but he is quite important in all this. I actually met the guy in France 98, can't remember if it was Bordeux or St Etienne but he dropped in to grab a bit of the glory, draped himself in a Saltire, got his picture taken for the papers and TV and then nicked off again. General opinion at the time was that he was just a rank opportunist but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, having studied him on the campaign trail I have come to the conclusion that he is not only vain, smug and unbearably pompous 'The sovereign will of the Scottish people!' etc, but he also totally devious, unscrupulous, and dangerous. It turns my stomach to hear him and his sidekick Sturgeon making their impassioned speeches about social justice, welfare, poverty, care for the elderly etc in what is a naked and cynical attempt to cloak themselves in the garb of the Labour party and seduce that party's disaffected members. The SNP has never been a truly socialist party and in their three years in office they have done absolutely hee haw to redistribute wealth. In fact, they are even proposing a three percent cut in corporate tax to make the rich even richer. As I said before, he will say and promise anything to get crosses in Yes box. In that last, messy debate at the Kelvinhall, at one point he tried to make out that Alastair Darling had made a major concession on the currency issue by saying Scotland could use the pound. In fact, as he well knew, Darling had conceded nothing at all, he had never denied it was technically possible to do so. But big Alex tried to fool the viewers. It was an outrageous lie. Don't be fooled! Point 2 - the economy. Now this really, really matters folks. We have no deal on the currency. Alex Salmond, in all his arrogance, believes the leaders of the three main UK parties are bluffing and will allow an independent Scotland to use the pound. Who knows? He may be right, but even if he is does he really think any deal he manages to get from the Bank of England will be advantageous to Scotland? He thinks he's going to trot down to the Bank of England and they will beg us to keep the pound. My guess is they will have him on toast. He is completely out of his depth. An independent currency will be hugely expensive to set up. The international bankers may or may not lend Scotland money but since we would have no financial track record more recent than the Darian expedition what kind of deal are we going to get from them? Ditto the EU, you may not like it but access to the single market is extremely valuable. We may get in, but then again we may not - big hitters like Spain would be loath to admit us and encourage their own secessionists, but even if we do it could be a long drawn out process during which we would be out in the cold, losing markets and therefore jobs, haemorraging money all the while. England will no doubt be very welcoming for any successful business or wealthy entrepreneurs who don't fancy taking their chances in Alex's nirvana and there would almost certainly be a flight of capital as people with any cash or assets would rush to stash them elsewhere. I'm not scaremongering folks - it is genuinely scarey! Everyone wants a better fairer society but if the country is bankrupt you're not going to get it. There is a real chance of that happening. Anyway, I've said my piece. Slag me off all you like - couldn't really give a rat's fanny to be honest, but at least take a minute and think this thing through properly. I have no problem with the majority of Yes voters, I think they are well meaning and decent people in the main who genuinely want to build fairer and more equitable Scotland. But I think they are wrong in how they think that's best achieved, and far too many people seem to be wandering around in a kind of Braveheart inspired trance that they need to snap out of quickly. This is too important.

Spot on Bob! http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/sir-bob-geldof-backs-no-vote-attacking-nationalism-as-a-very-dangerous-poli.1409820485

Certainly, basically I hate nationalism. I hate all the 'them' and 'us' stuff that this referendum has generated. I have friends from all over the UK and just hate the thought of us cutting ourselves off from the rest of Britain. I have always seen the home countries as like four brothers, all with distinct personalities, but with far more in common than differences. We get on each other's nerves, have fierce rivalries, make fun of each other, but, at the end of the day, we would stick up for each other if any of us were threatened. Sad that people want to throw that away. In addition, I don't believe a single word Alex Salmon and Nichola Sturgeon say. I truly believe they are more interested in Scotland becoming independent than Scotland being independent. As Salmond's biographer said, 'It's all about winning with Alex'. They will promise anything to get a Yes vote and have not demonstrated that they have a clear idea of how an independent Scotland would work in practice. It could genuinely be disastrous, and people need to think very carefully before they sign up for such an ill-thought through proposition. And no, I don't believe the statements coming out from the No campaign either but then I don't have to - I have lived in the union for nearly 50 years. I know what it's like. Is rule from Westminster perfect? Absolutely not. There are no end of ways we could improve things but I would rather see us attempt that than go down the independent route.